Leaderboard

- It should be a place where, when the 4-star-wearing HMFIC of the entire goddamn Air Force says "We are no longer doing xxxxx, because we no longer have the time/budget/manning to continue doing that", xxxxx fucking STOPS. Not the current model of *xxxxx stops for some, but continues for others because reasons* bullshit. - It should be a place where, when someone with "CC" in his/her job title says "I know CSAF said we don't ____________ anymore, but this SQ/WG/MAJCOM will continue to ____________, because I said so", that person is fucking FIRED. Immediately. - It should be a place where trainees, whether E or O, aren't force-fed the "You MUST aspire to be the CSAF/CMSAF or you're a worthless piece of shit!" mentality. - It should be a place where Command E-9s wouldn't dream of saying something as fucking ludicrous as "If you're in this room, and you aren't maneuvering to take my job, you're wrong".

I see where you're coming from. However please consider, if you have a young Captain asking for gouge about AFPAK Hands, it'd be much more accurate and helpful in his decision making matrix to say: "AFPAK Hands sucks because there is a high likelihood you'll be undervalued and misused during your deployments" "AFPAK Hands sucks because there is a high likelihood you'll never command in this community" "AFPAK Hands sucks because you'll see the tragedy of our mission in Afghanistan up close" No one says "AFPAK Hands sucks because I didn't get promoted." If they do...f*&k 'em.

Copy DP

I just want to know if the dudes that dropped the MOAB from the MC-130 were T-1 or T-38 grads.

Based on everything I know about naval aviation, kills below the hard deck are not valid, no matter what Jester does while defensive.

My airline's AFPAK Hands program will station you at the Kuala Lumpur Beach Club Café with a tall drink and a companion who will be happy to keep you company, GI.

You can be the best of what's left!

I thought pilots were the dirtiest minds in the AF... then I flew a bunch of nurses to Hickam... I got some stories... Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

You turned down T-38s to argue with people on the internet?

Great post. The problem is that it IS dismissed out of hand. Discussion is great, as is understanding... but it's the GO and promotion board level dismissal that make this program radioactive. Thanks to you and CJ for the great posts. They help expose Changs bullshit for what it is. Chuck

Current AFPAK Hand and while I don't regret volunteering, I cannot recommend this program. It is a great but backwards idea. Instead of taking experts, teaching language and culture and placing them in like billets in the field, the program teaches experts language and culture to fill whatever billet, irrespective of previous experience or validity as most organizations viewed Hands as a free body to fill a slot. This is especially true post 2014 but talking to several cohorts, it has always been applicable and if you look at other programs out here, they all say the same thing. The "real" advising billets are filled by contractors or other programs. For example there is a 11H pilot who instead of flying with the Mi-17s or MD-530s is in targeting. Mi-17s are advised by 6th SOS and MD-530s are advised by contractors. In fact contractors have better personnel management (to fulfill the contract), more continuity (typically stay longer than military tours) and no career penalty (no unchecked the boxes). Or several months ago there was a 12M weapons officer who instead of flying with the C-130s was in policing. C-130s of course are advised by multiple ARC squadrons. I can only think of a few people (voul and non-voul) who actually like their assignment, we do so little advising that it is more than a joke that the most useful language we use is English and I have yet to meet a Hand who honestly thinks this country is going to become better. In exchange all of the carrots mentioned are at best half truths. Many volunteer to have an advantage for FAO (RAS in the Air Force) or FSO (State). However the AF unlike every other service treats RAS as broadening, not a career field change, so you'll still be off track from your normal progression. FSO is obviously not guaranteed and means separating from the AF. Others volunteer for NDU/NIU (IDE in res) but you still need to be "picked up" off your boards for it to count, otherwise it is just another masters. Promotion rates depend on the service, community and board. The other services, especially the Army, use AFPAK Hands to get rid of their worst officers so that affects promotion rates. Within communities, specifically fliers, I can't imagine not flying for four years is an advantage although by the time most have met thier first or second gate they may have already topped out anyway. Boards are all different and you can't compare a O-6 board one year with an O-5 board from another. To be fair the program's performance is average and most of these problems are endemic to everything in Afghanistan. No mission. No personnel management. Even if we were doing out performing the rest of the country, Gen Petraeus himself said (or echoed) that reconstruction and advisement only works when there is a modicum of stability and good governance. I want the program to be better. It was a great idea, I enjoyed learning two languages and don't mind deploying for two years, but there are reasons there is a reported 50% 7-Day Op and 80% separation at the end of the program. SIGAR is finalizing a report on AFPAK Hands, likely recommending to at least change if not end the program, not that we ever concur with those recommendations. Rumor also has it that the Army, Navy and Marines each recommended ending it as well, with only the Air Force (which has the highest volunteer rates) dissenting, not that that will happen either. I'll leave you with excerpt from Foreign Policy https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/18/our-generals-failed-in-afghanistan/: "The premier example of this mismatch between what military leadership said we were doing, and what the bureaucracy was actually prioritizing, can be found in the story of the AfPak hands program. The program was launched by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, and lauded as the key to shaping Afghanistan by creating a cohort of expert officers from across the services that would have the language skills and experience to build the kind of long-term relationships needed to build an effective Afghan security apparatus. While a priority for the Chairman, the effort was never embraced by the services. Despite the fanfare and stated importance of the program, mismanagement and mis-utilization were rampant as this specialized cadre encountered personnel systems unable to support non-traditional career paths. Caught between career managers that saw the program as a deviation from what officers “should” be doing – leading tactical units – and a deployment system that often led to random staff assignments instead of partnered roles with Afghan leaders, the program quickly became known as an assignment to be “survived” if not avoided altogether. A leaked briefing from the Army G-1, the service’s head personnel officer, to the Chief of Staff of the Army in 2014 confirmed that the AfPak Hands program had become a dead end for military careers. Officers who had participated in the program were being promoted at a fraction of the rate of those who had not. There are only two explanations for this outcome: Either the Army was sending sub-par officers to serve in the program, or officers were being punished for deviating from the traditional career track. Whichever it was, both explanations reveal that the effort to train and advise the Afghans was simply not a priority for the Army. Similar challenges faced those who served on Security Force Advise and Assist Teams. These teams, like the AfPak Hands program, were always ad hoc and widely considered assignments to avoid, as they did not align with traditional career paths. And in the end, the rigidity of the military’s 1950’s-era personnel system simply overwhelmed any desires to prioritize the counterinsurgency mission. Centrally managed and organized around rigid career development templates, this personnel system does a magnificent job of sustaining a peacetime military that is prepared to fight and win tactical battles at the onset of a conventional war, but is not built to go beyond placing square pegs in square holes."

I agree with this. It just doesn't make good financial sense to take one guy and give him two trainings. You're literally robbing Peter to pay Paul. We're going to subtract one C-17 pilot and add one F-16 pilot (-1 + 1 = 0); net gain, zero. But yes, ultimately, if we are going to do that, they will need all the training that it takes to get someone to that spot - i.e. UPT phase 3 in T-38s plus IFF. Whether or not it is reasonable, I think Duck hits it with the following: The USAF needs to examine dollars and sense right now and also needs to understand why they aren't able to hang on to these year groups. It has little to do with the culture right now (IMO) and much more to do with the prevailing culture in which these year groups spent the previous 6-9 years growing up. People come up through a system and make decisions based on the sum total of decisions that they witnessed the AF making over their 10-yr ADSC. Few people wake up one morning in a vacuum and just pull the handle and jettison their careers. These are complex decisions people make by taking in the totality of personnel and other decisions that they see staffs making over the course of 1/2 a career. I'm not sure the Air Force realizes how important it is to maintain a consistent personnel system, deployment framework, promotion system, etc, for motivating people to stay for a career. The AF has been nothing but whiplash in those categories for far too long, and they are now reaping what they've sown. They will make the most money by fixing the culture, and leaving it fixed. This will ensure they have a hope of holding on to the majority of dudes who still have 5+ years of ADSC remaining. Sorry, I realize I wandered off topic there.

Lol at the gatekeeper mentality here. I don't have a dog in this fight, but if it's important to the Air Force to have dudes cross flow from certain year groups, just start them in phase 3 of UPT. Proficiency advance from there as necessary. You can't pretend like only the "chosen few" with "the right stuff" in T-6's come track select time have a hope at making it. I know nobody is saying that exactly, but that's how it comes across to me as I've been lurking on these boards the past few years. 4 years after UPT as a C-17 or C-130 guy I don't see how it matters if you flew 38's in the past or not. We all know getting one in the first place is 50% skill, 50% luck, and 50% timing. I think just about every Saudi who has ever graduated UPT is proof that anyone can be taught to fly a fighter. It's just a matter of how long he syllabus should be for cross flow guys. Not that it matters because you all wish you were AFSOC anyways.

I think it's rainman.

See, that's why you need to serve your country by separating and getting out of the way. There isn't anything personnelists can do because it isn't a beauracratic problem. It's a leadership problem. Commanders can fix it. Not you. Not AFPC. The more you try, the worse it will get.

Thanks! My submission reached SAF/PC on Feb 24 so I spoke to someone friendly at the Palace Chase office who told me that my submission had been "boarded" on Mar 15 and is still awaiting a decision and signature from SAF/PC that typically takes 2 weeks to receive back. Obviously, it's been over a month now. She said hopefully they should get that decision this week but I didn't sense any confidence that would necessarily happen. As soon as they receive that, the office sends out a myPers email.

Read this, they even quote the instruction. Best advice was from Bayou_Eagle_Driver

I know of at least one 11F billet that ACC wouldn't let go of to a 12B because it would mess with the rated staff allocation. So instead, it sat unfilled.

No more -slick- H models. Give me an FE or give me death

I was able to help people using commanders ranking and I guess on the flip side lower people on the overall drop list. It is a valuable tool for SUPT flight commanders, people that haven't been in that position don't realize how powerfull it can be. You could run the mass score for a week before turning in results to the SQ/CC. You could really only move around the top couple studs and the bottom couple. In the end though, you had to answer the mail on what you did to the SQ/CC.

I had a 99 pcsm and a good GPA. Gotta love business school and RateMyProfessors.com. I was also the dumbest guy in my class and finished with the lowest academic ranking out of freaking everyone. Most days I had no clue what my classmates were talking about since they were all nuclear rocket surgeons from the Academy. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Many years ago, someone posted a chart showing each component of the order of merit and correlated to success in pilot training. The only negative correlation (albeit slight) was commander's ranking. The most positive correlation was the BAT/TBAS. Hopefully, once we get rid of the T-1, ENJPPT won't get any more or less fighters than UPT bases.

Well... AF is releasing the PDSM for Cyber Retention Pay in 2 days. Wonder what the take rate is going to be in comparison to you zipper suited sun gods. Doubly so, since Grosso said we need to retain 90% to make manning healthy.

I could probably count the number of times I've felt compelled to write an online review on just one hand (and it's usually for extreme disappointments), but I wanted to buck that trend to weigh in on BogiDope. I've been chasing the military aviation dream for a while now. After applying for Navy OCS (got selected with a Pilot slot but had a family emergency and now I'm too old), applying for Air Force OTS (got selected with a CSO slot -- stoked but still hoping to get picked up by a Guard/Reserve unit before going to OTS and committing to AD), and applying with 20+ Guard and Reserve units (had a couple of interview invitations so far), plus reading BaseOps.net and AirWarriors.com for years, I thought I had a pretty decent handle on what it takes to put together a really good application package for military aviation selection boards. But I'm always looking to learn and improve, so after seeing this thread a few weeks ago and being impressed with what BogiDope has to offer so far, I decided to buy an annual membership since it seemed really fairly priced. The articles on the site are awesome so far, but I was especially interested in the consultation service. Last week I spoke to Stephen on the phone after I'd sent him one of my Guard UPT board application examples a few days before. He's a former AD F-15E pilot and now a Guard F-15C pilot and FedEx pilot. I was seriously blown away by talking to him. He provided extremely detailed and granular feedback on exactly how I should tweak multiple parts of my application, as well as some really awesome tips on how to address some unique background factors I have. I don't mean "this part should be more specific and you can take this part out because it's irrelevant, but other than that it's good" -- I mean going line by line through everything and really finding the best ways to organize and communicate everything. He really took a lot of time in getting to know me, my history, my goals, family situation, etc. to be sure that he could give me truly personalized advice, and he went the extra mile to make sure that everything on my mind was addressed. He's a really easy guy to talk to and I feel much more confident about applying to future boards now that I've had some truly exceptional quality feedback from someone with experience that's as legitimate as it gets. On one hand I almost don't want to recommend it because I don't want other applicants to be even more competitive, haha. But of course I'm a team player so I'll spread the word -- I think BogiDope is an extremely valuable resource if you're really serious about getting a Guard or Reserve gig. I highly recommend checking it out.

This can be a very costly option if you are required to pay the VA funding fee...When refinancing a non-VA loan to a VA loan, you are required to pay the full 0% down funding fee regardless of the amount of equity you have in the home. That is 2.15% of your loan value for a 1st time user and 3.3% for a subsequent user (2.4% and 3.3% for a reservist). Regular VA refinances (not VA streamlined IRRRLs) are full credit qualifying loans (VA appraisal required along with a termite report for homes in termite states, full credit qualifying documents like paystubs/LES, bank statements, etc.). Not that bad except the funding fee is a bitter pill to swallow if you are not exempt....Let me know if you have any other questions!

So let me get this straight, you finished #1 in Phase 2 "by a mile" and did so well in Phase 3 you got FAIP'd? Sounds like you nailed it

True, it is four different airspaces...but that means the different squadrons would be able to book different airspace and be assured of deconfliction. I know the biggest reason people in the community hate the FTU assignment so much is because it's in Abilene TX. Not to mention the facilities at Ellsworth are so much nicer.

Technically true, but the large amount of concessions FAA/locals/reservations/etc forced on the AF over the process Huggy referenced resulted in almost 50% of the airspace being closed to LL, and the "huge airspace" is actually 4 airspaces that you can only join once a quarter for LFEs. And then the fighters don't want to play (understandably) since it's capped at FL260. Still better than Lancer though.

Good for you, now STFU.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/google-hr-boss-advise-prevent-best-people-quitting-human-resources-tips-tricks-a7676731.html Interesting insight from leadership at a massively successful company - one that has to answer to people (shareholders) in a way the AF does not. When your superiors answer to no one but a revolving door (on ~4 year schedules) of bereaucrats playing their own cards in the political arena, is it any surprise the system lacks true leadership? His first point is far more poignant when you subtly replace "with" with "for" and his second point is spot-on: reference AFPAK hands, meaningless 365s, straight quotation marks, OPR/EPR hell - the list goes on and on.

I'd love to hear a critique of this from the person Astan, I'd love to see a good discussion of this program that doesn't dismiss it out of hand. Here's my theory: In this business, one should never expect traditional success to flow from non-traditional career paths. 1. "Post Commitment Maj." (11-12 years of service) -- 16-17 years of service by the time you regain credibility, even if you went to IDE. Probably too late for DO. Definitely too late if you want to make O-6 early. Probably too late to make O-6 IPZ. O-7 for a guy at 16 years who isn't at least a sitting DO? Nearly impossible. 2. "Maj/Maj(s)" (9-10 years of service) -- You won't go to IDE without an exception to policy. Even then, you're coming back to flying at 14 years and need a full re-qual. You might be on time to make DO, but you'll definitely be an unknown quantity. Maybe it will work out for you, but you'd have been better off at an OG/CC-arranged staff job, remaining a known quantity in your community and continuing to build expertise related to your mission. If the goal is O-6 and you're not going to get sent to staff, AFPh at 9-10 years might be your best shot. I'd suggest you ask yourself why O-6 is this important and whether there's a reason you didn't do well enough to go the traditional route. If there's a specific adjustment you think you can make, your goal should be to find a 3-4 star willing to direct a WG/CC to put you in the gameplan. Be ready to lead for a boss who didn't choose you in a squadron that doesn't believe in you. Duly anointed you'll make O-6 and maybe even O-7. (Speaking as someone who has observed this happen a few times.) 3.a. "Capt" -- If you left at 8 years, your PRF went in while in Afghanistan. Most likely your records were ineligible for a DP except for at the MLR. Unless they were truly top 10%, your records met the board with a P and didn't get selected for IDE. 3.b. "Capt" -- If you left at 7, you're brand new to staff and the only rated captain as your PRF goes in. Good luck competing against non-rateds who manage significant parts of your general's portfolio. Best case, you're a dude with little tactical expertise and zero operational level knowledge... what is the general going to do with you? He doesn't know either, which is why you're doing nothing of consequence. You might not make O-5 unless you get back to flying and get a job working for the WG/CC. Even then, you need a full re-qual and don't know that much about the Wing's mission. See discussion of GO above. You'll spend your Maj years working your ass off to try and retire as an O-5. 3.c. "Capt" -- If you left at 6, you probably left your community before you were an IP. Your O-4 board assumed you were kicked out of flying and didn't give you an IDE slot. You may not even make major. Alternatively, you're now forced to do a full 4 year flying assignment to make gates beginning at the 10 year mark. You're ineligible to attend IDE as a result. Without in-res IDE, you're a "top 25%" guy at best and won't make the cut for DO. I'm sure there are great reasons to do AFPh. Promotion probably isn't one of them.

Hell, why bother? 11B/12Bs have been filling 11F billets for years.

Amidst all the bleeding pussies, slighted egoes, and hurt feelings around this topic, don't forget that these are decisions based on qualifications that would likely translate to success in the IFF, FTU, and MQT training pipelines. It has nothing to do with ego. It is "gatekeeping", yes, because the AF doesn't have unlimited money to throw at people to see if they will make it -- they have to make educated and calculated decisions. Again, the Colonels and Generals who are kicking this stuff around saw the last iteration of the puppet show and how that turned out -- hell, some of them may have even been participants in it themselves. Since the results previously were marginal/acceptable at best with T-38 trained pilots, what is the logic some of you have behind thinking that opening it up to pilots with no fast jet single-pilot decisionmaking experience would deliver a better result? With a T-38 trained pilot, there is at least some sort of measured, documented performance that shows adaptability to that flying environment and theoretically the potential to succeed. With a T-1 trained pilot, there is no measured documented performance of those tasks...so which is the riskier bet? Again, it isn't about talent, it is about experience. As said, everyone realizes there are probably a number of T-1 trained MAF dudes who would excel when retrained as a pointy-noser using the existent T-38 requal/IFF/FTU/MQT syllabi, but the AF can't build policy based on what are likely statistical outliers.

Maybe they were T-44 trained...

I think the goal is to grab heavy guys, that, after 1 fighter ops tour and "experienced", will be sent to fill an 11F staff billet. Less about flying a fighter, more about the AF saying "I need a body from a particular year group to fill an 11F staff billet in 4ish years, and I don't have enough 11Fs in those year groups to fill the staffs and operational requirements so I'll make some new ones via cross flow." If that wasn't the case, I can't see a reason for cross flow. Just increase production at the UPT/FTU level to get bodies in cockpits, and you'll have them in the community much longer. A cross flow steals a FTU seat with lower payback, so there needs to be a strong reason for cross flowing them over.

So what is the difference between being a fighter pilot and flying a fighter? Smells like the old "no true scotsman" logical fallacy to me. To to be clear though I agree our pilots are much higher quality. All I'm saying is if you give a dude the same training and he passes all the same check rides, he is no different than a late to rate dude direct from UPT. (I imagine being a wingman as a captain/major might be a little weird but it's not like it's never been done before) People who want to cross flow need to realize they are starting from the bottom again, but that doesn't mean they can't do the job. Additionally, no one should expect to be given a short cut. Including those that flew the T-38 in a past life, so why is that a requirement to cross flow?

So personnelists are the real heroes of the AF sitting in their cubicles from 0900-1530, with a 2 hour lunch break. Never thinking of working over the weekend, never showing at 0300 or leaving work at 2359, never doing anything dangerous at work besides clear paper jams. Never going through rigorous formal training programs. Oh and if stop loss is a thing, you think it's the victims that need to remember their core values? You mean the people who would be lied to? How about the AF shows their excellence and avoids this debacle. how about the AF shows their service before self, and takes care of its veterans instead of manipulating federal law to stop them from finding civilian jobs when they leave. How about he AF shows their intergrity and takes stop loss off the table since it is blatantly dishonest. I doubt Chang is real with the asinine garbage he says... then I listen to commanders calls, and I think he might be a real thing.

I forwarded the AFPAK Hands email directly to Gen Everhart's "Why are we losing so many pilots" inbox.

I haven't heard this much quibbling since week 2 of UPT, and that guy ended up becoming a personnelist.

Do any of the airlines have an AFPAK Hands program? Mine doesn't.

This pretty much confirmed my suspicion that GC is a troll who just likes to get everyone here spun up about stuff.

This is complicated, and I don't claim to have the full picture, but here is what I think it really takes. TL;DR: Congress, the Joint Staff, and the USAF all have a role to play. All must take unprecedented steps to fix this, but the potential gain is beyond anything we've ever known. Congress: 1. Eliminate the vast majority of queep driven by federal law. 2. Bring pilot pay up to 75% of airline pilot pay with similar seniority/qualification. 3. BRAC Cannon yesterday, everywhere else tomorrow, and mass forces at superbases near major metro areas. Build a DFW-worth of runways to support and make the airspace Class B if needed. JCOS: 1. Inform COCOMs that their staff requirements will be combined (Navy flyer for USA/USAF/USMC/USN rated job, etc) or eliminated, to the scale or 50-75% or more. 2. Annihilate 179s as a thing. One fvcking day? Are you kidding me? Give people the credit for their service. This is one example, but i think the trend is clear: shorter deployments, where the service pays a premium to get people home to their families, and if not credits the time served, rather than allowing a cowardly bureaucrat to steal that credit. USAF: 1. Divorce rated promotions from non-rated. Separate boards, with separate quotas. To make a long story short: you can replace an MPF 0-3 with about 30 grand. To replace a (good) pilot is 100 times that amount. Time to recognize return on investment, kids. 2. Make the non-verbal signals clear: stop the anti-ops "you're all officers and equal" jihad. I won't rant about why. 3. Man the queep positions so that pilots/rated only do DOT, DOV, etc jobs aside from flying, aka those that require their expertise. 4. In Robin Olds' words: "If I can order a man to combat 24 hours a day, he can get paid 24 hours a day." I truly do not care if MSG folks have to work 12 hours shifts; they will support. If they quit, I do not care; I will replace them for the cost of a single aircrew TDY. Run the numbers and tell me I am wrong. However, I will also massively increase incentive flights and the like to connect Ops to MX to MSG and MDG. I would unite the factions so that they would SEE what their worth ethic empowers. 5. Inform COCOMs that their "rated requirements" will be manned at about the 10% level or lower. And see [JCOS] part. 6. Start researching how to finally quit the AEF and move to a better, more cohesive, more predictable model. Don't go full Army, because that is just retarded, but find a way for families to know that "this" deployment is just the one in 4 years, or whatever. 7. Most important: CSAF has to get out there, to every base, and every squadron bar, with nametags off and interview the pilots/CSOs/STS dudes with beer in hand and no entourage. This is the hardest part. He/She MUST establish credibility by allowing the rank and file to speak truth to power at the risk of being disrespectful. This will be a self-sustaining process; if the CSAF showed up here, paid my bar tab and got me a DD, I would whiteboard out the cycle of factors, at the FGO level, that are ensuring our mission failure - but only if I trusted him. 8. I'd overhaul Lackland to look more like an Army basic training unit than the clown show it is now. Kill the "but the queep reg says" buffoonery, and make 50% or more personal combat skills. I could go on on this point, but this is the essence of "expenditionary skills" and would motivate people that want to be part of a warfighting organization. Those who don't: quit. They will be replaced at their least expensive point. Folks, it's time to steal from the USMC model and challenge our people to be part of an elite combat unit, not an office camo welfare unit. And the take-away, folks: trust. This will require huge risks by leadership to change the paradigm, but if they can restore trust, then the rest will follow. Their biggest challenge now is that no one trusts the leadership, even if they make valid arguments and really want to change the culture.

Chang is an Olympic level troll, no one could seriously believe any of the tripe he posts on this forum, it is simply meant to throw fecal matter at the oscillating disk. I almost feel sorry for someone who has so little going on in their life that they have to invest this much energy just to cause a reaction. Sadly his comments represent the worst of everything that is wrong with our Air Force right now, the sickening result of a fighting organization converted to a corporation then repeatedly dunked in political correctness. The shoes thrived in a corporate environment where everyone is a "warrior." While I believe every Airman is important and makes a valuable contribution, if you don't take lives or cross the fence with your life at risk, it doesn't mean you are a lesser person, but you most certainly are not a fucking warrior. I hate to be the old guy who points out everything that is wrong while yelling get off my lawn and granted I do have a unique view now that I am out and safely wrapped in my DD-214 Blanket, but for fucks sake something has to change and make people like Chane a distant memory.

I'm convinced Chang is a line flying Major that just loves to rile everyone up while sipping some 18 year single malt.

First of all... props for posting a picture in your actual profile pic. That is the first thing we ask for from wives and girlfriends (boyfriends if it's an Eagle driver). Second what everyone else said about UPT. After UPT, as a young married couple, things get better while he is not on TDY or deployment. Meet the other wives and form a support group. They will end up being part of your family. Expect him to be gone. Sometimes a lot in one year then not so much the next. I was away from home about 360 something days during my first 2 years after getting to my unit, then got tagged to an Exec job where I had TDYs and Deployments that I volunteered for cancelled by my Commander. I ended up being gone maybe 8-10 weeks total that year, but spent a lot of time at work taking care of an Early Promoted O-5 so he could go to school and make O-6 and higher. Got to be there for the conception and birth of all my kids but a couple of my friends have missed 1 birth (1 missed the conception too). Ultimately, after 10 years in the USAF, my family and I have decided we have had enough, but enjoyed the majority of the time we spent in. The moment I knew I was done was when I left on a deployment 2 weeks after my youngest daughter was born. When I got back months later my wife handed her to me and I could tell she didn't even know me. Now every time I leave on a trip, she asks if it's another "long one". It is a great opportunity, enjoy it, but don't let you or your husbands life be defined by it. Be open and honest and make decisions together what's best for your family even if it isn't what someone above him says is "bad for his career". Never let him leave home while you are fighting, one of our good friends' wife found out the hard way that you never know the day he doesn't come home until it's too late. Although more rare these days, it is the cold hard truth about flying. A lot of rambling from someone about to hang up the job, but hopefully it helps in someway. Feel free to ask any other questions and welcome to the forum. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

No, no, no, no, no, please God never.

Stop Loss always has been (and still is) on the table. It has to be. U.S. citizens are depending on military pilots, some reading this forum, to defend this country and their right to L/L/PoH. We must sustain an appropriate posture to our enemies in this interconnected world. Stop loss, if invoked, becomes a patriotic duty. I sincerely hope we have a few patriots left in the pilot ranks. Your personnelists are working day and night at the highest levels to solve this problem by any other means. Those personnelists are heroes in my book, and I believe they will be successful. However, if they are not successful & Stop Loss is invoked, it will be easier, and shorter, if service members remember their core values & jump on the bandwagon. Young people- do not be disheartened by the negativity on this blog. The future of our Air Force and our country is bright, and you are the beacons. Thank you for serving.